Just posted: Hands-on preview of the Canon EOS 100D/SL1

We've just posted a hands-on preview of the Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1. Distinguished by its impressively small form factor, the 100D's 18MP CMOS sensor, 3" touchscreen LCD and 1080p30 video resolution will be familiar to followers of the Rebel series. Canon's hybrid phase/contrast detect AF system has been tweaked, however, to provide much greater scene coverage. Has Canon managed to maintain its customary handling experience in the smallest DSLR it has ever made? Click on the link below to read our preview and find out.

Comments

I just got my Canon SL1 with the stock zoom lens. I went out and bought the "pancake" 40mm F2.8 lens too.What other lens would be cool?I just shoot general beginner photography.Why is there such a drastic jump in Canon lens prices? It doesn't seem correct to me.Will this camera take better pictures than my recently stolen Lumix GF1 with the "pancake" lens?ThanksMarc

Some folks here have suggested that the Rebel SL1 is Canon's replacement for the EOS-M, I don't think it is. Here's why: Canon is a camera manufacturer that competes in all camera product categories from simple point & shoots through to Hollywood Cinema production equipment. The EOS-M was a 1st effort at an ILC, but not the last. Remember, Nikon had to rethink their ILC too. Whatever shows up as the EOS-M2 will be a much stronger competitor than the original. The only real question is where will Canon position the new ILC in relation to the rest of the Rebel line? My guess is right alongside the SL1 price-wise. It's all about having a product choice for every type of buyer.

Yes, I think Canon will have their mirrorless line of cameras running right alongside their DSLR line of cameras for quite a while. Why should this be surprising? After all, Sony is doing that. When Sony puts out an NEX camera, does anyone say that this means Sony is going to kill off their DSLR/SLT bodies? Of course not. Unless you have financial or resource restrictions, you don't need to put all your eggs into one basket. Canon has plenty of money and resources. And they have enough market/brand popularity to support both mirrorless and mirrored camera lines. Smaller, less popular brands don't have this luxury. That's why Olympus had to shift from 4/3 to m4/3 rather than continuing with both.

Perhaps it has to do with your predictions about Sony and Panasonic ILCs versus a DSLR offering "a familiar form factor" below. You didn't seem to care about Canon's own offering for ILC with the same form factor: EOS-M. So, it had to be logical to assume that Canon is now offering redundancy in that SAME price class (as a matter of fact).

My earlier posts were an acknowledgement of my total lack of enthusiasm for all ILCs including the EOS-M. And that isn't likely to change even with the introduction of an EOS-M2, because I'm a hardcore optical viewfinder loving and phase detection AF spoiled DSLR fan. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm against smaller, lighter, stealthier design. It just means that I'm not willing to trade away my OVF and PDAF to get there. But that's just me! So when my long time camera manufacturer of choice offers up a product that's truly smaller, lighter, and stealthier than anything that has come before it, and in a familiar form that doesn't throw out my beloved OVF and PDAF to get there, then that's cause for celebration at my house. Canon is betting that there are a whole lot of folks who feel the same way I do. That's all I'm saying.

I was responding to your points involving ILCs. If you didn't care about ILCs, why bother? But since you did, you invited the inconvenience.

As for your latest excuse, I am a spoilt PDAF fan too. And just as spoilt with the beauty of manual focusing too. It is why I am excited about these MILCs, and in fact, using one. At this point, the need for PDAF is being met via a mirror attached to the NEX, and when I choose to explore the other side: manual. It is great to have both.

I am always amazed at how some people draw conclusions in ways that aren't logical. As if, to render irrelevant all mirrorless cameras, all that Canon needed to do was to make a DSLR just a little bit smaller than their existing DSLRs. Now, it may well be, and likely is true, that for SOME people who were on the fence, and who liked mirrorless cameras only for the smaller size, that the SL1 is the answer that they were looking for. I like it, because in addition to its compactness, you don't have to pay for an expensive EVF, and the good ones are expensive and significantly increase the cost of the camera. But mirrorless cameras have real, substantive advantages, which I pointed out. The mere idea that they would all be obviated by the SL1 is manifestly absurd. But after I pointed out the real advantages of the mirrorless camera, some Joker came along and said that I had lowered the quality of the dialog. Sheesh. But then again, it is a Web forum ...

There's room for all these cameras, DSLR or mirrorless. It's not a binary world where it has to be one or the other. Canon will eventually have big DSLRs, medium DSLRs, compact DSLRs, ultra compact DSLRs, mid-level mirrorless, and entry-level mirrorless...and probably even high-end mirrorless someday. Smaller companies may be constrained by financial limitations, so they only concentrate on one type of camera in one format (like m4/3 mirrorless), but larger companies can offer a broader range of cameras. Ultimately, variety in the marketplace is a good thing for consumers.

As for Canon, I don't believe they think that the SL1 makes mirrorless irrelevant at all. Rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, they basically decided that they needed to offer the most compact DSLR they could make, while still developing their own mirrorless products. Different people have different preferences, so why not sell to all these people?

Great you posted. There are couple of strange things around here flying and its nice to read review from EOS HD.

For me no go as I got confirmed that has: slow 2009 sensor design which can not compete with Pana GH2 or 3, neither Niks 5200 or 3200 in stills and video, ergonomics and prediction for slowest hybrid AF (in LV) on the world.

If in review is writen that people with cameras from 2009 can be forgiven not to upgrade for this one or 700D, and video is downgrade from 600D it means its fail for me.

Several comments here claiming that the SL1 obviates mirrorless cameras. Very silly. WxLxH for this camera is 2x the NEX-7, which isn’t Sony’s smallest mirrorless camera. And presently at least, for this camera there is no collapsible lens of the sort that Sony and Panasonic make. Still a big, big difference in compactness. The biggest disadvantage of mirrorless is the high cost of the really good electronic viewfinders. But that changes very soon, now that Epson is in the picture. The advantages are the ability to use the viewfinder when shooting video, live view in the viewfinder, magnification in the viewfinder to aid manual focusing, brighter image in viewfinder for dark subject and/or high f-number, and access to camera menus via the viewfinder. All real advantages. The SL1 is no doubt going to be a nice camera, but it is naive to think that it obviates the advantages of mirrorless cameras.

No rational person would use a Sony body to AF Canon lenses and track a moving subject.

μ4/3 is now irrelevant due to this small SLR body. If an EOS M successor can track sports subjects better and is smaller, OK. NEX is useless. Why? It won't AF Canon lenses. Who will willingly carry two different systems at a special stage?!

If this SLR tracks subjects OK I'll buy a body to carry.

Your tone is insulting and your choice of characterizations has lowered the quality of the discussion.

@rallyfan:"No rational person would use a Sony body to AF Canon lenses and track a moving subject."

I guess that demonstrates your idea of improving the quality of discussion. That being said, I don't think a suggestion is being made to carry Canon AF lenses and a Sony body, but facts that while SL1 may be the smallest DSLR, it ain't got the size and weight advantage over mirror-less cameras. In fact, it is barely smaller and lighter than my Sony A55, which is a DSLT.

As far as NEX being useless, may be to those who need faster AF to get thru the day. Even in that case though, NEX can be (and has been) adapted to shoot with super fast AF although that wouldn't be possible with Canon lenses but Sony/Minolta A-mount lenses. And in fact that is exactly what I was doing last night: shooting NBA basketball with NEX.

Canon is a big company, with plenty of resources. Clearly, they are pursuing mirrorless cameras with their EOS M line, while also offering an ultra compact DSLR. That way, people who want a Canon mirrorless camera can have it, while those who want a Canon mirrored DSLR can have it, while others may even choose to have both. It is silly and naive to think that Canon couldn't offer both mirrorless and mirrored camera options simultaneously.

As for comparisons to the Sony A55, keep in mind that there are a lot of consumers who really won't even consider a Sony DSLR. They would rather stick with a Canon or Nikon DSLR. So to these people, it really doesn't matter how small a Sony A55 is. They want something that size, but in a Canon or Nikon body.

@T3:"As for comparisons to the Sony A55, keep in mind that there are a lot of consumers who really won't even consider a Sony DSLR. They would rather stick with a Canon or Nikon DSLR. So to these people, it really doesn't matter how small a Sony A55 is. They want something that size, but in a Canon or Nikon body."

Trust me, I'm well aware of the follow the crowd mentality. But that wasn't the point of bringing up my Sony A55, rather the size comparison to SL1.

Some of these numbers may not seem that significant on paper (a few millimeters here, a few millimeters there), but cumulatively I think the difference will be much more noticeable when a consumer actually holds these cameras side-by-side in real life.

But at any rate, you certainly can't blame Canon for making a camera similar, or smaller, in size to the A55. It's just smart business!

Canon Rebel SL1 is 18% (15.3 mm) thinner than Sony SLT-A55"And just as I said, the SL1 is barely smaller than the A55. The major difference in size comes from a lack of grip (depth) and a combination of shallower eye-cup assembly plus lack of articulating LCD in the SL1. It also eliminates stereophonic mic to save size. Is it worth it? Not to me. We're not talking about major differences here. Take a look at this top view:http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.377,238.51,ha,t

The A55 has a more protruding view finder cup, and of course articulating LCD adds to the depth, and so does the traditional DSLR-like grip that is rather flat on SL1. These are what add to the extra mm.

I'm sure Canon will find buyers. However, many complained that Sony A55 was a bit too small, so Sony bumped up the size of its replacement a little (Sony A57) while the lesser model, Sony A37 retained smaller dimensions.

I'm sure there were many consumers who bought an A55/A35 because it was more compact than, say, a Canon Rebel. But now Canon has remedied that discrepancy with the Rebel SL1. So regardless of whether the SL1 is much smaller than an A55/A35, the same size, or barely smaller, I would expect the SL1 to siphon sales away from the Sonys. But, heck, Canon could just sell SL1's to their existing customer base, and they'd still probably outsell the Sonys.

Rallyfan, that is one of the most discombobulated comments that I have ever read. It makes almost no sense at all. I had to read it several times to understand that you are saying that because Sony NEX cameras are not the best cameras to use with Canon lenses, that mirrorless cameras are inherently inferior to DSLRs. Sorry, dude, but that just doesn't make sense. And, you say that it logically follows, from the fact that the the SL1 is smaller than Canon's other DSLRs, that MFT is irrelevant. These kinds of comments are manifestly absurd and do not really deserve any reply. Yet, you make these comments that no one could take seriously, and then say that MY tone is insulting and that my characterizations have lowered the quality of the discussion. All that I did was point out the SUBSTANTIVE, INHERENT advantages of mirrorless cameras, which had been overlooked in a couple of earlier posts. How does that lower the quality of the discussion? Who would take you seriously, anyway?

@EinsteinsGhost- When I said "the Sonys", I was obviously referring to the A55/A35 Sony DSLRs that we had been discussing-- not Sony NEX. Besides, not everyone wants a mirrorless camera. Just take a look at Amazon's "Best Sellers in Digital SLR Cameras" (Amazon puts MILCs into this list along with DSLRs) and you'll find that the highest-ranked MILC is the Panasonic GH3, currently at #48. There are 47 other DSLR bodies, DSLR kits, or combos that outsell the best selling MILC product on Amazon. Next highest selling MILC is the Nikon 1 J3 at #69. I didn't see any Sony NEX on that list.

So in a conversation about DSLRs, and about comparison of the SL1 to the Sony A55/A35 DSLRs, particularly a conversation that now includes the SALES of these cameras, bringing Sony NEX into the mix is even less relevant because A) it's not a DSLR and B) its sales are far below those of DSLRs.

@T3:"When I said "the Sonys", I was obviously referring to the A55/A35 Sony DSLRs that we had been discussing-- not Sony NEX. Besides, not everyone wants a mirrorless camera."

You should try to be more specific because as you may have noticed, the comparison is largely being made to mirrorless cameras (and you have been involved in those, including in this latest post of yours). Obviously, now you acknowledge that SL1 has no size advantage over mirror-less cameras. It does, over DSLRs.

Now, looking at Sony's DSLR/DSLT models, as I told you, Sony A55 was (and for me, is) a great success. However, it was criticized for a few things that revolved around its size and weight. It was deemed to small and light by many. I disagreed with them (as you might note, I disagreed with the person below about lens size versus body size). Obviously, the DSLT/DSLR form factor has its appeal. Going smaller will work if noticeably smaller, as NEX is to Sony SLT. Not by stripping features (an SL1 issue)

"Obviously, now you acknowledge that SL1 has no size advantage over mirror-less cameras. It does, over DSLRs."

And it only needs to have an advantage over other DSLRs. Because the reality is that the ILC market is still dominated by DSLRs, as the Amazon sales rankings clearly show. MILC sales are still just a small blip on the radar in most parts of the world. The other reason why the SL1 doesn't need to have a size advantage over mirrorless cameras is because Canon has a separate path for that: they are developing their own mirrorless cameras. Duh!

But the other thing the SL1 does is that it will siphon off those people who are sitting on the fence between a MILC and a DSLR. These are people who like an optical viewfinder and would prefer to be in Canon's popular DSLR ecosystem, but also like the advantages of having a smaller ILC camera. These people don't necessarily need a DSLR that has a "size advantage over mirrorless cameras", just a more compact DSLR.

IMO, MILC is going to be a niche market, appealing to a few who want smaller systems and a few enthusiasts who simply enjoy the pleasures of a flexible system. DSLR market is primarily run by the same perceptions that made SUVs hot sellers in the 1990s. I recall that "cross overs" were a fad, and "toys". Now, where are those SUVs, when CUVs are in fashion? What happened?

MILC market needs to overcome a few technological challenges (fast PDAF, for example) and more importantly, perceptions. It will take a few years to change that. The oldest of these systems is may be 5 years old (MFTs).

As far as SL1 is concerned, I couldn't care less about its existence. Obviously, Canon sees a point to it. My point is primarily to address the perception of how there is a camera that can now dramatically change the size aspect of a DSLR. Given what I have seen, and own, it is a laughable proposition to me.

@EinsteinsGhost - you keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Now you're claiming that DSLRs are just a passing fad, akin to SUV's? Wow. Sure, someday, MILCs will probably surpass DSLRs in popularity. But not because DSLRs were a "fad". Sometimes, things are popular because they are the best solution at a given time in history. I think that's definitely been the case with the SLR, film or digital. How long that continues to be true remains to be seen, but as long as the SLR continues to evolve (certainly, the evolution from film to digital SLR, then evolving into a video and movie-making tool, were important recent evolutions), I think this is a "fad" that still has many years of life left in it.

@T3:"you keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Now you're claiming that DSLRs are just a passing fad, akin to SUV's?"

Well, you just demonstrated your ability to comprehend a response to your own ideas. You were trying to sell current sales numbers to predict continued domination. I presented facts from auto industry, sales of SUVs versus cross overs in the 1990s. The question was, what happened?

The only evolution that DSLRs are seeing are in sensor, and in many cases, maximum efforts to combine video and compacting the size. When you see DSLR technology "evolve" to have sensors that are better at on-sensor phase detection, how exactly does it make a case for the future of mirror based systems? Got a clue?

That should be your answer to "what happened?" Hahaha. Got a clue? Obviously not.

Secondly, even if they did ever decline, there certainly wouldn't disappear (like a lot of "fads"). All this would apply to DSLRs. In fact, in many segments of the market, it would probably still dominate for a very long time to come. Thirdly, I wasn't even trying to "make the case for the future of mirror based systems!" My comments about DSLR technology evolving were (obviously) making a case for the future of DSLR technology!!! Got a clue? Clearly not. Hahahaha.

Well, it seems you liked my (apparently) "weak" dismissal of your ideas. Perhaps SUV sales are still very strong, as long as you can't tell the difference between a crossover and an SUV.

But, if counting sales numbers today, floats your boat, and is predictor of the present being the future, then simply know that I couldn't care less. What I do care is to have a discussion AGAINST ideas that I find amusing. And the idea of SL1 suddenly being the answer to MILC options in terms of size and weight being one of them.

And while you may be trying to claim how development of on-sensor PDAF (for example), combining of video with stills, is exactly what mirror is great for, it makes ZERO sense to me.

I'll buy one. I think it's a brilliant move on Canon's part and further makes inroads into the dslr market. Let's face it, regardless of whether you are a mirror vs mirrorless advocate, one thing is for certain... Neither technology is going to quickly prove superior with any rapidity that would warrant your existing camera system obsolete. However, if there is one characteristic that has commonality among virtually all camera systems, it would have to be miniaturization. There will always be a segment of the market that is interested in something smaller and lighter. Maybe the SL1 isn't the pinnacle of feature evolution in a dslr, but c'mon now... how many people want to use existing Canon lenses on a ultra small body frame dslr? How many of us have wished we had an ultra small camera that was feature rich and could be easily thrown in a bag for the day with a 40mm pancake? I sure have. It's perfect for portability, travel, impromptu shoots/video and will most definitely...sell.

Well, ... you may hate it , God knows why ( after all your baseless observations does not hold much ground dear mirrorless fans ! ) The truth is that nothing can beat the accuracy of optical viewfinder ...so relax,accept this fact, and when this little miracle called SL1 hit the shelves, ... be there just to feed your curiosity ... and who knows, you may buy one .... or two .........

Is there a universal definition of "accuracy" in this context? What about when the subject is too dark and/or the f-number to large to able to see much in the optical viewfinder? What about not being able to use the optical viewfinder when shooting video? (And if video doesn't matter, why does this camera have that special sensor for hybrid autofocus?) Does the live view function work in the optical viewfinder? Can you access the camera menus via the optical viewfinder? Why is this camera a "little miracle"? Because it is a little smaller than most other DSLRS (most of which are gigantic compared to older film SLRs)? It still is enormous compared to most mirrorless cameras, even the ones that use APS-C sensors, isn't it?

If you're looking for accuracy, skip the view finders, and look through the scene with your eyes. A penta-mirror only provides you with a tinted, reflected and refracted tunnel view, and at the same time, doesn't even get anywhere close to what the sensor will be recording. And then you have a non-articulating LCD... not that LCD in a OVF based camera is worth a dime more than just reviewing.

Accuracy of a tiny pentamirror viewfinder covering just 95% of the frame... can be beat by anything. How accurate does that viewfinder show you the effect of your color corrections, for example? Exposure? Histogram or blinkies maybe?

When Christmas Camera Shopping Season rolls around, I suspect that this will be Canon's best selling DSLR. Canon forecasts that they are going to sell 9.2 million DSLRs this year, up from 8.2 million last year, so those who claim that the DSLR is dead are out of touch with reality.

People tend to forget that it's still a net decrease in overall size, even when using a "big lens." I use Canon EF lenses on my tiny Oly E-PM1 using an EF-to-m4/3 adapter. That's definitely a case of a "big lens" on a small body. But I don't care because it still gets me a net decrease in overall size.

...so big/heavy lens is pulling camera which has essentially no grip... Thats sound like real wonder of ergonomics aimed on handheld photography for pros....enthusiast will focus on shooting with this camera on big heavy tripods....

@emtx - clearly you don't know how to properly hold a camera. When using larger/heavier lenses, you have your left hand underneath the lens to support its weight. Therefore, there is no issue of "big/heavy lens...pulling camera." It's no different than if you had a big 70-200/2.8 lens mounted on a 5D MKII. Even in that situation, the lens is very big and heavy, and would "pull" the camera if you were not supporting the lens with your left hand! Learn how to hold a camera! Hahaha.

As for your claim that the camera has no grip, that's clearly false. It has a much deeper grip than an OM-D!

@T3Thank you for educating me - I would never figure out in my life how to hold a camera with big lens without you. I would dare oppose to you, that is no difference to 5D mkII. (THERE IS and BIG ONE!) Its about proportion, balance and easy handling of the whole gear in hands. If you try to shoot more than 10 snapshots on warm, sunny Sunday afternoon walk you might feel it.

Considering OM-D thats mirrorless and not DSLR so out of class to compare.

I agree with T3. I would rather shoot with a lighter system all day long than a heavier one. I see absolutely no point to adding weight to camera body, every time a larger and heavier lens is used. There is a reason why attempts are made to trim down the weight of camera bodies.

@emtx - EVERY camera/lens combination, regardless of the "proportion", has a center of balance. I've used a Canon 100-400L IS with small Rebel bodies with no problems. Just use proper camera/lens holding technique.

And if you want another example of disproportion, I also currently use Canon EF lenses on my tiny Oly E-PM1 body, using an EF-to-m4/3 adapter. The E-PM1 is TRULY a camera with NO GRIP, and is MUCH lighter and smaller than an SL1. But I still have no problem using it because I have my left hand supporting it at its center of gravity. So why do I use EF lenses with an E-PM1? Because it gives me a very compact, minimalist camera rig, while still allowing me to use my existing Canon EF lenses. And there are times when m4/3's 2X multiplier is advantageous.

The point is: learn how to hold a camera! If you know how to properly place your hands, virtually any camera/lens combo can be handled well, even if its a Canon 85/1.8 EF on an E-PM1 (which I was using today).

@EinstensGhostI travel around 2000km a month with my gear (2 bodies, 4 primes,+). I definitely understand point of weight. One reason of buying K5 was compactness and quality. @T3I understand you. I shot with FF, D300s, K5 and anothers. I do support my camera with left hand and I like smaller unobtrusive equipment. However, I have 2 projects on street when being fast to change lens and take a picture in difficult conditions require that I can set camera while doing basic composition, fine compose and shoot. In that particular moment grip and reasonable weight distribution helps a lot. I shoot on film MX (same as OM-D) with manual 80-200mm lens. Its not stabilised and its possible to get sharp picture. I am definitelly takes more time, energy and you become visible.

Sorry for English. Maybe bit simpler:Point I am after is, that its strange for me to make "smallest" DSLR, omit the grip, while this "smallest" is smaller cca 2mm - 1cm and 80grams from another DSLR, while having big lenses.

@emtx - so by your logic, Canon shouldn't make a small DSLR like the SL1 because someone else already makes a small DSLR? LOL.

Plus, you still think that the SL1 has no grip, and you're still wrong! It does have a grip. In fact, it has a better, deeper, more sculpted grip than your Pentax MX or the OM-D. What hypocrisy to falsely complain about the SL1 not having a grip, while your own MX has no grip at all! As dpreview describes the SL1's grip: "The handgrip, with its offset shutter button and lip running across to the lens throat, is surprisingly good for such a small SLR." And, "The textured grip is deep enough to provide a solid hold of the camera." Meanwhile, your MX's "grip" is just a flat slab of nothing! Clearly, you're not a very good judge of camera grip design! LOL.

Dear you are fanatical Canon user, defending this product even if you are offending by drawing conclusion of not knowing how to hold camera or hypocrisy.

Watch out for telling me that I am hypocrite. I just told you, I am able to hold and make a still with 30+ years camera with nor grip so you arrogantly stop teaching me. Me personally have a brilliant camera by all means.

To compare 30years old M analog and brand new DSLR is idiocy, probably you are fond of in order to get any kind of stupid argument.

So here is another one. K 30 - is cheaper, have great ergonomics, great handling, almost same size and sensor beating 7d from Canon. If you wanna complain about lenses - well you can buy Sigma f2.8 which in latest test was better than Canon lens.

emtx, you're simply talking crazy, my friend. If your 30 year old flat-slab, no-molded-grip Pentax MX were to be introduced today, it would be ridiculed for its complete lack of ergonomic design. And yet THAT is the camera that you praise!? LOL. One of my first cameras was a Nikon FE2. Great camera for its time, but by today's standards it has practically no ergonomics and definitely no molded grip. Meanwhile, the SL1 does have a far better designed grip than these ancient flat-slab SLRs (which is clearly visible if you just look at a picture of the SL1!), and I'll trust dpreview's hands-on confirmation of the SL1's good grip design (especially for such a compact camera).

As for the K30, in the context of size in this discussion, we can't ignore that the K30 is a larger camera and a whopping 250g heavier than the SL1. Are you mentioning the K30 to distract us from the other ridiculousness that you've already written? I guess so. Hahaha.

T3 - You stop being arrogant. I mentioned I am able to to make picture on it even with no grip and stabilisation wen you stupidly preaching about how I should hold camera. You are fanatic to defend Canon. There is no argument you give. Only that camera has place on market and its small and better handling than 30 years old camera. I take pleasure to take pictures with vintage cameras and do not expect same like modern DSLR. You put to my words I compare them. Read this you genious with T3 camera: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9829/new-canon-sl1-100d-and-t5i-700d-fail-to-excite"Though cute the new entry level 100D (above) offers a 25% reduction in size at the expense of handling and no articulated screen. There’s seemingly no new functionality on this camera either in video mode, not even for stills! Owners of the 4 year old 550D from 2009 could be forgiven for not rushing to upgrade."

I love hearing from all of the mirrorless interchangeable lens compact camera fans with their dire predictions of the pending death of DSLRs as the main stream enthusiasts camera of choice for the masses. As I understand it, the ideal ILC camera would be packaged in the smallest possible body that offers APS-C image quality, auto focus as speedy and accurate as phase detection AF, a large and sharp rear LCD for composing and focusing the image, excellent video capture, easy manual control, plenty of internal processing for raw and jpeg capture, an endless variety of lens choices, and oh, an eye level electronic viewfinder, (just in case).

Well ok, what if somebody offers you a camera with real Phase Detection AF and all of that other stuff on your ILC wish list, substituting an optical viewfinder for the EVF? Would that be acceptable to the ILC fans? Canon thinks so, and so do I. Call it an "ILCDSLR" or call it a hat if you want to. It's still a Canon Rebel SL1 and it's a winner.

I'm glad that you love hearing from all the fans of mirrorless cameras, because you are probably going to get some love, Mr. DarkSunglasses. The SL1 is going to be a nice camera, no doubt, but your characterization of the advantages of mirrorless cameras is so far off the mark that it is funny. For starters, if you multiply LxWxH for this camera and do the same for the NEX-7, which is not Sony's smallest mirrorless APS-C camera, the ratio is right at 2:1. That's hardly what you'd call similar in size. And Sony has that new collapsible zoom, and Panasonic has a similar lens. The SL1 does NOT have all the advantages of a mirrorless camera, even ignoring the size difference. Ability to use viewfinder for shooting video, especially in daylight where rear LCD is useless. Live view in viewfinder. Access to camera menus via viewfinder. Bright image in viewfinder when dark and/or high f-number. Magnified image in viewfinder, for focusing. These are all real advantages. Be serious.

Your observations about Sony and Panasonic ILC cameras are correct, but my point is that Canon's new Rebel SL1 shows the inherent strength of the DSLR design, which is its ability to evolve. ILCs and DSLRs will coexist alongside each other quite easily because they appeal to different customers, but one is not likely to replace the other, at least not within our lifetimes. Bottom line being that Canon is offering potential new ILC and DSLR buyers a new choice for the same money as the Sony and Panasonic offerings in a form factor that is already familiar and therefore comfortable to its established legions of loyal customers as well. My first impression of the Rebel SL1 is that it will be a major sales success. Why? Because I'm thinking of buying one or two SL1 bodies with fast prime lenses for myself, and I don't usually buy small cameras of any kind.

@Donnie GDSLR cameras will last as long as people believe and perceive them to be better. They do (currently) have an advantage: faster PDAF system. That may cease to be an advantage with evolution of on-sensor PDAF. That effort is currently in its infancy.

But speaking of SL1 specifically, what I see is Canon's effort to kill its own mirror-less camera: EOS-M. And here is something more interesting: I own a DSLT from 2010 that is only marginally heavier and larger than the SL1. The latter drops articulating LCD, and grip, and makes "mono" work instead of stereo, and like. That isn't progress, it is stripping.

Donnie, you did a much better job of making your point the second time. With the first post, I thought you were saying that mirrorless cameras have no true advantage. That is what it sounds like you were saying. But now you are saying, more clearly, that mirrorless cameras do not obviate DSLRS. I find that much more tenable, and will not disagree. Presently at least, the electronic viewfinders do not quite measure up to a good optical TTL viewfinder. But I'm not sure how long that will last. If the resolution improves by another notch or two, and the dynamic range improves by another notch or two, it might be difficult to discern the difference except in low-light situations where the EVF has the advantage. The advantages of the mirrorless camera are fundamental, whereas the advantage of the DSLR is due to the lack of maturity of the mirrorless camera. There is also is the AF difference, which now is essentially moot.

I'm guessing Canon's aim is to sell lots of cameras. The small body targets those who want a 'real' SLR but wish it wasn't so big, as well as gives the option to the curious to try something smaller and more NEX/m43-like without losing the whole lens investment in the process. This is a demographic they haven't gone after yet so there's potentially money to be made. Absent any sensor or feature evolution it's probably the best they can do for now.

This makes me much less interested in μ4/3 bodies. I'd like to see a comparison between this and the OMD, but for a change I'd like to see SPORTS SHOTS rather than a bridge in the samples.

If this is quicker to focus and keeps subjects tracked well, I want one. The lenses aren't an issue, I've got them. I want a small body that can track a moving object. I don't care about scenery shots and buildings etc. Moving objects, focus tracking -- that's it.

The OMD is very fast, plus you can get a smallish 100-300 for those far distance shots (200-600mm equiv focal length - the only way to get that in a Canon APS-C SLR is to pick up a 100-400, which weighs a ton, is huge; it'll be off balance on the SL1). Or if you need a F2.8 zoom you could pick up the 35-100/2.8 which is smaller, lighter, and less money than Canon's 70-200. This SL1 is too much of a let down for me to consider it. OMD and its 9fps still looks like a better option to me.

Olympus is "happy" that, every single year, their camera division loses money. Nikon is "happy" that Canon now has two lines (100D, EOS M) of compact APS-C cameras with interchangeable lenses, and they have none. Money losing Sony is also "happy" that they now have those two lines of Canon cameras to compete with. And by this fall Canon might even release an updated EOS M that focuses quickly. That would make the competition even more "happy".

I will be interested in the kind of viewfinder they put in that thing. It's one of those features that are easily overlooked. If smallish mirror box means key-hole view finder, this camera certainly would not be for me.

Canon would have to make a 22/2 ef-s pancake and a collapsible kit zoom (with video features) before this camera is worth considering for the general, Internet camera geek population, and even then, an articulated LCD would be a big plus.

Pentax already did. It's called the K-01. It didn't do very well ... putting it mildly. And it doesn't have a viewfinder, which for so many was the deal breaker. The new, small Canon resembles the K-01 when viewed from a top view.

@veroman- You shouldn't compare the SL1 to the K-01. The K-01 was a major failure because A) it had no built-in viewfinder, B) it offered no provision to add a viewfinder and C) it had a weird and unfamiliar design. As a result, a lot of people wouldn't even consider the K-01. Plus, the weird, avant garde Marc Newson design was a turn-off to people who just wanted a more compact camera that still was, and still looked like, a conventional DSLR. But the lack of a viewfinder alone was enough to kill off the K-01. Canon, on the other hand, was smart to just make the SL1 a mini DSLR, with all the conventional things you'd expect on a DSLR (including a conventional DSLR viewfinder).

T3 - you might be right about viewfinder. I hope they will fix it. Just image quality is great from K1 / better than from EOS 650. I do not comment on design - you might not like it, but its plain good. Considering avant-guarde = this does not exist anymore.

Not knocking the K01 but its lack of phase-detect AF was another issue vs. DSLR. The K01's AF was especially mediocre when released, though it improved considerably with firmware updates. It did however have a full-sized DSLR-class battery (same battery as K-7 and K-5).

Plastic lighter. I like lighter. Easier to carry for long periods of time. High end GPS equipment I use that costs $20,000 a unit are made of plastic over a metal body because it makes them lighter and durable against falls. Metal dents which could dislodge interior components.

I had a good ol' plastic Canon 350D/Rebel XT that I traveled around the world with. It got knocked, dropped, banged, kicked, and rained on many times throughout its use. It never died. I've since given it to my 10 year old nephew, and it's still going strong. Don't underestimate well-designed plastic.

Speed isn't everything. The fact there are pentax pancakes is verey wellcome. I'd choose the 15, 21, 60 and 70 pentax pancakes over any zoom, since the point is to get small. The ability to handle zooms is just another plus.

I think with this camera, to compete with mirrorless, there will be power zooms and pancakes from canon.

Sorry gents, ubalito is right., In USA, this camera will sell well because it will be right there in the front in Cosco and other big box stores. That is what drives volume sales in suburbia. Plus, the name Canon is safe in suburbia.

Just for the record. K30 is cm wider, 0.5cm taller and 2 mm deeper. It has a grip which gives essentially better handling. Its hard to say about image quality since its not tested, but K30 has a great sensor - unbeaten by EOS650D and stabilised body. This guy is not that essentially smaller. Lets see how it will do.

You mean: company that manufactures amazing gear only for some historical reasons: (almost)everyone hate it and bash whenever there's a chance (and sometimes: even without it)Yea... that's about right.

AndrewG NY, absolutely true. People just haven't had tie to notice 2000, because MS quickly added a few bells and whistles (adding bugs, ruining performance and increasing memory consumption by factor of 2 in the process) and released it as XP.But pure 2000 was pure goodness, as good as an OS should ever be. They could have added support for new device forever and that is it. It would still demand 64M memory to comfortably run its apps, load in half a second on a modern computer with SSD and not get in the way.

whatever Canon throws into the market it will sell. Reused the same sensor and same 10 years old sensor fab and people still rebuy new bodies. Other companies try new things and it fail, but Canon do something a few years later and it sell. Kind of amazing.

chipwork analyzed the canon sensor. They are using the same fab for 10years. Do they make small change in the sensor design, yes, but overall it is close. Look at all the dxoMArk score, they don't change too much, opmly small increase. To improve ISO canon has to process or cook the raw now. Image intel or AMD using the sam fab for10 years. We would be still on Pentium 4.

Believe it or not, 99.99% of the buying population doesn't know or care what a sensor fab is, let alone cares how old it might be. They just know that the cameras are producing good image quality, and come from a strong and established brand with a large user base. What's really "quite amazing" is that you would actually think that "sensor fabs" would even be a consideration to the average buyer! Take off your nerdy propeller cap, Spectro.

well less dynamic range and iso for you. Canon raw ISO can be cooked, you can take 2 or more shots for your dynamic range i guess. People in my photography group are always wanting to buy new camera, not lenses. I tell them if you really need the new features then go for it, otherwise your iq is about the same. Buying better lenses is the way. They have little clue show sensor progress.

In another form it was sugested that it would make a good campanion to a 5D so that EF lenses could be shared - perhaps if they had a 35mm but as a 5D owner I wouldn't Buy ! This camera will only be bought as a "ONLY CAMERA "with a packaged zoom and I suspect that most Camera salespersons would offer a FUJI X /Sony NEX or a real camera like a D7100 as an alternative ( even a greater cost )!

Don't be so sure it'll not be used as a second body. I'm considering it for use alongside my 7D as an alternative to a compact. I prefer the lens sharing over buying something like the NEX or Panasonic G series.

Oh it will definitely be used as a second body, a fully featured compact DSLR with a decent viewfinder, you betcha. Canon knows exactly what they are doing. Bar the long in the tooth sensor its a brilliant camera. But even that sensor is quite capable and the newest and best really aren't all that much better practically speaking.

Canon has a massive usership, and it'll make an excellent second or third body, especially as an alternative to a FF body or even any of Canon's other APS bodies. I use a 5D and 60D, but the SL1 dwarfs them both, so it'll make an excellent ultra-compact companion body.

I like it! great move by Canon. Yes i will definitely buy it with a new sensor, vari-angle screen, wifi [for tethering], 60P AVCHD Video and REAL DSLR focusing. Because of the bulk that made me try mirrorless which i can have a small bag with 4 lenses and dont notice it when im travelling-BUT im a DSLR guy! if i can have something in between bulky DSLR's and small mirrorless i would take it. I agree with most people's complaints here it does need a few extra features to be embrace by consumers. I dont agree that this is only for soccer moms and ladies. Im going to wait if Nikon would compete in this move by Canon. Both companies are reliable and you cant go wrong with any of them. My 4 lenses for this might be the 16-35/2.8*30/1.4*85/1.8*100/2.8 Thanks Canon you did great! but.... i hope this is just a start of future evolution of DSLR cameras. You can do better.

I'll add that Sony also tried the tiny DSLR thing with the a230/330/380, and received complaints about how the camera handled (in particular, about the grip being too small).

Also, once you move away from a small standard prime or lightweight kit zoom, the lens starts to dominate the system's weight/handling characteristics. If you have a 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8 mounted, it doesn't matter if the camera's a small, lightweight entry level camera or a hulking D3/1D. It ends up feeling just about the same.

As well they should. Their buyers don't really want or need mirrorless cameras and this SL1 is a good idea overall. I'd like to see the SL2 with a 12mp sensor that has even better low light capability and improved DR over Canon's 18mp sensor.

^^ No actually people for a majority of casual shooters a mirrorless is all they need. I have used Nikon, Sony and Canon's entry level DSLRs and found them pretty ordinary in both focusing and ergonomics.

A basic mirrorless camera offers practically the same IQ in a much smaller package especially now with the pancake zoom lenses. The newer crop of mirrorless cameras will outperform most budget DSLRs in focusing and their small sized lenses allow them to be more portable than a DSLR.

For those who aren't really looking at building a system a mirrorless is a more compact and a better alternative (IMO) than an entry level DSLR.

maybe they decided that the guy who wrote the memo didn't really think it through or have the lens/existing customer base to make it a viable proposition.. Things look different when you have the volume customer base like canon seem to do.

I like it, I have Canon lenses I can use on it. I already have an Olmypus EPL-2 but have not bought any other lenses as I don't want to invest in another lens series and actually I bought it as my P&S camera, but this product from canon could really work for me and I guess i'm not the only one.

I could not care less about a "vari-angle" rear screen, I am only interested in aan optical viewfinder, that's it.

If it's a decent price (i.e. cheapee than a 650 or 600d) itz will be replacing my main camera (500d) in the next replacement cycle..

"No actually people for a majority of casual shooters a mirrorless is all they need." - BS. For majory of people a large sensor P&S is all they need. Mirrorless is same category as DSLRs, only smaller, more expensive, and by far lower choice of AF lenses. Rather poor option in the end.

No other brand can compete with Canon or Nikon in DSLR, no matter how big or small their cameras are. It is laughable that Oly even tried. On the other hand Canon and Nikon will sell everyday DSLR they make irrespective of the size.

"No other brand can compete with Canon or Nikon in DSLR" - well, other brands not only can compete, but actually: do compete.Just look at Pentax: they offer best image quality of all systems. Or Sony offering best continuous shooting and video performance with Zeiss lenses.

Actually, Canon is doing it right: they are sticking with the more popular APS-C format, maintaining compatibility with their existing camera system, and they've waited until the 4/3 system is on its death bed so they don't have to even compete with 4/3!

Well, most of these comments just prove that the internet is the true home of the great critical thinkers and corproate product analysts of the 21st Century. Not.

This camera is probably a very good idea. I hate to seem to "defend" a billion-dollar corporation, but so many comments here that this camera is not enough of an innovation for them is merely a reflection of their own narrow and relentles search for the "next thing" that conforms to their own narrative.

To me, smaller is better, with a 40mm pancake for vacations and weekend walk arounds. Takes my Canon lenses and HAS AN OPTICAL VIEWFINDER, so I don't have to view on an LCD, hold the cam awkwardly and put an extra layer between my eye and the world. I know about the add-on optical and shoe-mounted EVF's, and the more expensive cams with built-in EVF's. They make mirrorless cams more tolerable, but also, more expensive, and still don't compare to the viewing experience of even the puny optical viewfinders of the Rebel series.

I understand the motivation behind a tiny DSLR, and that category certainly will have an audience.The problem is that other manufacturers (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony) have tried the small DSLR route before, and all three dropped that route in favor of mirrorless cams. Whether the 100D's approach is different enough to succeed where similar cameras haven't remains to be seen.

I agree with most of this, but I think you're missing the boat with viewfinders.

Yes, a big bright optical viewfinder is a beautiful thing, always more pleasant to shoot through than a mirrorless viewfinder, if not always as functional (manual focus is better on mirrorless, also exposure information is in the frame).

However, TINY optical viewfinders suck. They just suck. I shot through an E-510 for many years. A great beginner's camera, with a sucky viewfinder. I'm sorry, but you can't claim that a tiny OVF beats a big, zoomable EVF. I'm sorry. You just can't. I won't let you. Have a nice day.

40mm (64mm eq on the Canon) f/2.8 is the most useless prime anybody could imagine. Too long for street, way too long for lanscapes and indoors, too short for tele or portrait or sports, too slow for low light and sports, too short and low magnification for macro, not versatile for travel/vacation... but it is the only fl they can make a pancake with 44mm flange and a mirror flapping inside of that throat.If you only have to have one fl, it has to be 28-35mm, see all those smartphone cameras, X100, RX1 etc etc. After all, you can crop from WA, you cannot "uncrop" this short tele...

As far as OVF's go, this one isn't too bad actually. The Oly finders in the 4/5/6 series DSLRS were pretty bad. I tolerated the E450's but really longed for a bigger view. The SL1's is on the small end of what I deem acceptable, but it's truly that= perfectly acceptable especially for such a small camera. Put on a nice glass magnifier from Tenpa and whoa, it ain't bad at all and doesn't add to the bulk either.

I have a 40mm STM and it is an absolutely fantastic lens for the money. However, despite its size its just a bit to narrow on an APS-C for an all day lens. But I have used it like that.But would love a 24mm or 28mm pancake.

It's tempting to bash Canon Rebels right out of the gate because there aren't a lot of whiz-bang features on them. But in the instances where I've used one, I've always enjoyed shooting with them. Everything generally works as it's supposed to and works well. Plus I think Canon has the best color reproduction out there with its images.

Lawrtencew, I agree with you, not that the 40 is useless - and especially not since it's also great on full frame - but that I'd like just one other pancake in the 16mm to 24mm range as well, to yield a wide angle for the new APS cam. With that and the 40mm, it would make a great kit for traveling with minimum size and weight. The APS zooms are OK and would be useful, but would be just a hair awkward and counterproductive on this shrunken DSLR.

"I understand the motivation behind a tiny DSLR, and that category certainly will have an audience.The problem is that other manufacturers (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony) have tried the small DSLR route before, and all three dropped that route in favor of mirrorless cams. Whether the 100D's approach is different enough to succeed where similar cameras haven't remains to be seen."

Yep they all moved on and now Canon has an open slot. It's great timing. Some people still prefer OVF's (a lot of people) and Canon has it's own market to court (bigger and more dedicated than any other market bar Nikon). I think you can't compare what Canon release vs. what the little guys released in the past. This one will sell, no question. I already want one.

Lot of unhappy people here but are they really the target market? This is at the bottom of their DSLR lineup and as such is on the radar of P&S upgraders. It competes with the lowest end offerings of Pentax, Nikon, Sony etc. This is a camera designed to be sold by the ton to those who are coming from a Powershot. As such it may appear magical.

How about the Olympus E-620 from 5 years ago ? Smaller than this, and much smaller when including lenses, IS with every lens, swivel screen, illuminated back buttons, external controls for almost everyhtin, amazing ergonomics, 7 all-cross-type AF sensors, fast live view, 4fps with no buffer limit, AF fine tune for all sensors, separate tele and wide af tweaks, in-camera hot pixel mapping and many others. Ok no video and about 1,5 stops worse ISO performance.

Well, obviously, one major shortcoming of the Olympus E-620 is that it was an Olympus. People are much more hesitant to buy into one of the smaller camera system brands (ie, not Canon or Nikon). It's a greater long-term risk. Canon and Nikon on the other hand, are much more widely used (ie, there's safety in numbers). And as history eventually showed, the future of Oly's 4/3 E-cameras is now very uncertain, and even less widely used than ever.

Nike uses a special rubber compound when making running shoes. People who have compared it with lesser shoes will notice a distinct advantage when it comes to grip on all kinds of surfaces. My question then is, why does it cost over $1000 to get a decent grip material on a camera body? The last good grip I used on a body was the old Nikon D300. Instead, we get "patterned plastic" and plastic skin grips that don't hold very well if your hands are very dry (winter) or sweaty (summer) in the lower models. On this body, it's hard to tell if it's a real material, or more molded plastic.

Canon needs a new Marketing Director - they are not in tune with the people - ask Nikon users they had the same problem a few years ago - made a change - and are now doing very well most of the time !I would love Canon to make a go of it but they are NOT !

There's a lot of ignorance in your comment. Obviously, there are segments of buyers for whom money and price are of no consequence. But for the average consumer (which this camera is aimed at), price is a consideration. An X-E1 kit is $1400 while an SL1 kit is $800. Big difference. Pricewise, these two cameras aren't even in the same ballpark.

And going with a popular, widely used brand and camera system is also an important factor. The Canon "Rebel/Kiss" brand is a well established brand, and Canon clearly knows this segment of the market very well. This Rebel SL1 is clearly aimed at that market. Canon's R&D staff know exactly what they are doing with the SL1. Cameras like the Fuji X100 and X-E1 clearly cater to a very different market.

It'll be interesting to see how the SL1 will impact the Japanese consumer market. That's definitely a market that prefers smaller cameras. That's one of the reasons why Japan is one of the places in the world where mirrorless cameras have done pretty well, thanks to their smaller size.

Small is what people want, but the lenses defeat the purpose somewhat with this camera.

Preference for small size is not a "trend", unless you define "trend" as something that began with the very earliest consumer technology of all kinds (calculators, computers, cameras, whatever), has continued without intermission to the present, and will continue indefinitely into the future.

I mean, c'mon, preference for small technology is not a "trend", something that just came along in the past year or two, and will go away any minute now. If you think that it is, then maybe you use a calculator as big as a toaster, I don't know. Maybe your cell phone is that big too. Maybe you have a CRT computer monitor as big as a box of grapefruit on your desktop. Maybe your laptop is one of those old thickies, as thin as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

News Flash! People have ALWAYS preferred smaller. It is not a "trend".

"People have ALWAYS preferred smaller." - that's the greatest BS I read in comments for a long, long while.

Small is a trend. Just that: a trend. There's a point where a quality lens needs to balance well with a body. Quality lens with a large sensor needs to be big - that's a law of physics (mainly related to diameter of front element). If it's big than it requires acceptable size of body to balance with. That's why people shooting tele lenses or bright zooms keep on going for bodies with large grips and good ergonomics. It just works much better than having a lens cap attached to the rear end of a lens (aka. NEX or EOS-M).Not to mention the fact that larger bodies got much better heat dissipation what's essential when it comes to shooting in low light conditions (especially: astrophotography).

Besides - the fact that VERY FEW people prefer smallest is truth for many other disciplines. Think about cars, houses, TVs, smartphonesSMALLEST camera IS nothing more THAN A TREND.

"Besides - the fact that VERY FEW people prefer smallest is truth for many other disciplines. Think about cars, houses, TVs, smartphones"

Except that "smallest" is not "small". They are two different words, with two different meanings, and two different uses.

I don't know how old you are, but I date back to the 60s, and I've experienced most of the technological revolution in my lifetime. Things have gotten smaller, and since consumer preference drives what manufacturers produce, I have to assume that people want small.

You are wrong about cars. They've gotten smaller. Yes, some people prefer Hummers or pickup trucks, but sedans are smaller, and the tiny cars of today weren't even offered 30 years ago.

Cameras, everything, smaller, smaller, smaller. "Full frame" is a small format. People argued about this at length in the film days, and said they were sacrificing quality for size.

Wow, you must live in a very interesting country than. One where an average car is a Nissan micra, and in a film age everyone shot large format.

Cause here where I live - and I obviously must be wrong - an average car is roughly in the same size of the average car 50 years ago, heck: I'd say that Ford Focus is much larger than a Ford T being manufactured 100 years ago, and the cameras were smaller during the film age than they are now - this Canon 100D is probably the first modern SLR-type camera that reminds me in a size of an old good film cameras. My Olympus OM-4 was truly magnificent tiny camera, for years of digital progress NOONE could make an SLR in that size.And that was full frame... 100D still isn't, so I suppose, depending on a point of view - you can say that my older camera is still smaller than anything "modern".

So... I must be wrong. Everything gets smaller and smaller... everyone shoot mirrorless, and everyone drive Nissan Micra. Amazing world we live in, don't we?

Look, if you're on an anti-mirrorless rant, then rant away. That's what these forums are like.

But if your point is that people don't want small technology, you're off in la-la land. The problem is not that I live in an interesting country, it's that you live inside your own head.

So people don't want small smartphones, eh? You're not even bright enough to see that smartphones are small versions of computers, same functionality, smaller package. Smartphones are small, all of them, and that's why they are replacing laptops and tablets, which in turn replaced desktops.

According to Reuters, Canon "forecast that it would sell 9.2 million interchangeable lens cameras in 2013, up from 8.2 million last year." Not bad for a company who, according to people here, never does anything right.

The 100D/SL1 sounds like an excellent concept. I look forward to DPR's detailed review.

Good grief, why can people on this forum understand that this is not about how many Canon will sell? This is an photography forum and economic factors play no role here. Why does it matter to you that Canon will sell well? After all, you are the user and not the others. The fact that Canon sells very well does not make this a good product by any mean.

Nikon sensors over time have continously been improving in dynamic range, color depth and high ISO even as the megapixels have been increasing. Canon on the other hand have been relatively stagnant in its sensor innovation and in its inexcsuable that in four iterations at such a competitive segment of the market that it cannot come up with anything better. I'm a Canon man if owning a G1X and a SX260HS counts. However if I'm going to upgrade to an entry or mid tier DSLR based on curent offerings I really cannot see why I would choose Canon over Nikon other than maybe lens selection and shooting video.

Being fair Nikon sensors are Sony sensors with Nikon processors behind them. That said Canon has seemingly done nothing to update that 18mp sensor for a long time now.

As for picking what camera system I wouldn't base the decision purely on DXO mark scores. What lenses are available? What features are available? How does the design fit in your hand? I've gone with a Nikon system not based on the DXO scores but rather how the camera more naturally fits in my hand. All modern cameras after all perform admirably in most situations.

@JDThomas: Oh I know that not all of them are - the bulk of the recent sensors have been though.

As for Canon I doubt those are exactly the same sensors - it's very likely that there are numerous small technical changes to that 18mp over the years no one but the engineers at Canon know about. We know for example they have continually put their focus on video quality which is quite good.

In the end I think it's right that those of us who are critical of image quality give Canon a hard time for seemingly standing still. Realistically though a well exposed and shot image will look fantastic on those 18mp sensors. Heck I have old Rebel XTi images that I still marvel at how good they really can be.

Since when, to the heck, DXO is an ultimate way to determine image quality from a sensor?I thought that the cameras are there to make pictures, NOT numbers in DXO tests.We all know that Nikon been cheating DXO for a long while - remind yourself of a D90 "scandal" (even though almost noone calls it a scandal - for me it is a scandal).

It always tickles me to see all of these posts about sticking big zooms on small camera bodies. C'mon, how many people actually do that? If you do , then why blame the manufacturer for the poor ergonomic fit that results from that union? After all, just because you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should do it. I think this new DSLR body from Canon would be a great street photography camera if paired with a fast single focal length prime lens from 24mm through to about 85mm. Canon already has plenty of choices in that focal length range, so lens availability isn't an issue (my favorites are the 50s).

Once people actually are able to get their hands on one, this new EOS Rebel SL1 will probably prove to be as popular as traditional Rebel bodies, if not even more so, thanks in large part to Canon's clever packaging that doesn't leave out anything important to the DSLR user experience. IMHO, the camera is a winner.

But are you aware that there are no native wide angle primes for EF-S ?!. The lenses you mention range from 39mm to 136mm eqv field of view after the crop factor multiplier and could be smaller, lighter and cheaper if were made for EF-S.

Canon obviously testing the waters here. They have a reason to do so as something strange has been happening in the photography world lately. It is called mirrorless cameras. They were born with the concept of being small. Yet, most people seemed quite happy using them with lenses that defeat the purpose. Mirrorless cameras are not really small when you use anything else other than pancakes. So, Canon's position is, let me give photographers a small body traditional DSLR and the greatest collection of lenses to go with it (after all that is MILC's main disadvantage) and see what happens. Some existing small primes, such as 50/1.8 would be great on this camera.I tried to love my MILC (GX1, GH2), but too many limitations and not small enough. But there are people who love MILC's form factor, I am sure many will love this camera as well.

APS-C cameras have been around forever and yet we have not seen a full-house third party lens producer. Fact is lens design and manufacturing is expensive and if they want to do it they want to do it FF to get back the investment quickly.

People complain to much. Do you really think that Canon would launch a product without any clue of how many cameras will be sold? Also, it's a smart move, they made a small camera with the likely the most native lenses currently available.

the EOS-M probably did not hit the market very well, an this is a cheap solution with small development investment. To compete with mirrorless market, Canon is likely to launch compact primes(with more useful focal lenghs) and compact zooms. That's awesome, since only pentax has a good line APS-C optimized prime lenses. The pentax pancake line gives exlent results, and are small.

No matter how small the body is if then you have to stick a 24-70 2.8 on it.

With a pancake would be different but then a mirrorless makes much more sense

Canon anouncements are anything but exciting for the last few years, and I am a Canon user (I have owned 1000D, 40D, 5D and 5D mkII which I still own )My second body is an APS-C NEX 5N with an IQ pretty simillar to that of the 5D mkII